Lords Sitting of 3 June 1867

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Bunhill fields Burial Ground (105); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (119).
Committee — Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts Amendment* (85 & 128); Army Enlistment (112).
Report—Increase of the Episcopate (118 & 129).
Third Reading—Labouring Classes Dwellings Acts (1866) Amendment* (104); British Spirits* (103); Statute Law Revision* (106) and passed.

THE KNIGHTSBRIDGE CAVALRY BARRACKS.—QUESTION.
LORD REDESDALEasked, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to have the Cavalry Barracks at Knightsbridge pulled down; and in that event, whether those persons who were to benefit by the removal of the Barracks were to find a site and build other barracks at their own expense? He was induced to bring the subject forward in consequence of his having seen in the newspapers, and heard from other sources, that a great agitation was being raised by persons connected with property facing or adjoining the barracks, with the object of getting them pulled down. He had been informed by persons who were well acquainted with the subject that these were extremely good Barracks, and that their situation was the best that could be found for them in the metropolis for the services which the regiment quartered there, being the Household Troops of Her Majesty, were called upon to perform. They were also most conveniently placed for giving assistance to the civil authorities should the necessity unhappily arise. It had been reported that the Barracks were unhealthy—but he had heard from officers who had been quartered there the strongest authority of their remarkable healthiness. In fact, they were more healthy than the Regent's Park and Windsor Barracks. It was objected that these Barracks were unhealthy because a considerable portion of the soldiers' living-rooms were over the stables; but many of their Lordships' grooms and servants lived over stables and they did not complain of anything injurious. The only other objection was that the hospital was not so good as it might be; but that might be easily remedied. It would be going too far to say that any barracks built in former days were perfect with regard to all their arrangements—indeed, he believed it was doubtful whether the new model Chelsea Barracks, which had been recently erected at a great expense, were perfect in regard to ventilation and other matters. It was evident that this was a movement originating with persons who were interested in the property in the district, and who desired the removal of the Barracks with a view of improving their property at the public expense; and he thought that the persons who were agitating for the removal might fairly be called upon to provide another site and erect

1471
barracks at their own cost. When he asked a short time ago when the new Government offices were to be proceeded with, he was told that the money was not forthcoming for that most important object, and to remove these Barracks at the public expense — and he supposed it would cost £150,000 to find a new site and rebuild the Barracks—would, under such circumstances, be a most wanton expenditure of public money. The present site was a very good one, and he doubted if another so advantageous for the Household Troops could be obtained. The removal of the Barracks would be most unfair to those who used them, and would be followed with the greatest inconvenience. He hoped there was no intention on the part of the Government to accede to the request of interested parties.
THE EARL OF LUCANsaid, he should not be doing his duty if he did not express his opinion upon this matter, as he knew of no barracks in the country as good as those at Knightsbridge. He was glad to see the noble Earl the late Secretary for War (Earl De Grey and Ripon) in his place, as he had not the pleasure of listening to him when on a former occasion he had expressed himself so forcibly upon the subject. The noble Earl was reported to have said that the Barracks were so hopelessly bad that it was impossible to do anything in the shape of improving them, and that it was so unhealthy that it would admit of no sanitary alteration whatever of worth. But he (the Earl of Lucan) found that the Household Troops occupied these Barracks alternately with the Windsor and Regent's Park Barracks, and he had in his hand a statement to show that the Knightsbridge was the most healthy of the three. On what, then, did the noble Earl found his very bad opinion of the Knightsbridge Barracks? It could not be on insufficient space, because the men had on an average 700 cubic feet of air each; it was true the stables were only ten feet high, and perhaps it would be better if they were twelve; but how many of their Lordships had stables not more than ten feet high? He had known the Barracks many years, and had never heard of any serious sickness among the horses there. He challenged any noble Lord to produce a case of sickness among the horses. Doctors were known to be very fastidious; but the surgeons of his own regiments had expressed their surprise at the spaciousness of the Knightsbridge Barrack
1472
Hospital; the wards were no less than sixteen feet or eighteen feet high, and the only objection he had heard to the wards was that the windows were too high and prevented the sick from looking out. He therefore could not understand how it could be said that these Barracks were so hopelessly bad that they should be pulled down at a cost of £300,000 or £400,000. He did not exaggerate in making that estimate; the Chelsea Infantry Barracks, which would not hold 1,000 men, without officers, had cost the country nearly £200,000. [The Duke of CAMBRIDGE: £250,000.] He preferred being within the estimate, but would say £250,000. Could it be seriously intended wantonly to pull down Barracks which occupied the best possible site in a military point of view? However ill - disposed the late noble Secretary for War might be towards these Barracks, they would certainly survive him if left to time. No doubt there was a great outcry raised against the Barracks by persons in the neighbourhood; he held in his hands a petition addressed to a Secretary for War urging their removal; but the petition contained no allegation which was not false, and he believed its promoters had not only gone to every house in the neighbourhood but had gone every day in the week until they had extorted a signature. The petitioners asserted that the Barracks had been condemned by successive Secretaries of State; but he (the Earl of Lucan) could not endorse that assertion:—they said that the neighbourhood was infested with disorderly characters, and might be likened to the Haymarket; now, he had taken the trouble to make the comparison, and in his opinion there could not be a greater mistake. The petitioners also "respectfully referred to the statement made by Earl De Grey" that no barracks in the United Kingdom were as bad as those at Knightsbridge.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONasked, whether the noble Earl would be good enough to tell him when he made that statement.
THE EARL OF LUCANsaid, he was glad to hear the noble Earl ask that question, because he had already expressed the opinion that every statement in the petition was false; no doubt the statement had been put in the noble Earl's mouth; but every one knew it was untrue. The noble Earl was further stated in the petition to have said that

1473
it had long been the wish of successive Secretaries of State for War to remove these Barracks and to build others more suitable to the requirements of the troops and with all the modern improvements. He was therefore happy to find that the noble Earl had made no such statement. He believed the Barracks were at the present time in a most healthy state and required scarcely any sanitary improvements—certainly not more than £ 100 or thereabouts would pay for. He was under the impression that there was some speculative builder ready to buy the property, and that the outcry against the Barracks had been raised by persons who might make a good thing out of it. The Barracks did not, he believed, cover more than three or three-and-a-half acres, and, supposing the land were to revert to the Crown to-morrow, what would be done with it? Would they lay it out in buildings? In his opinion, houses erected on that site would be as great a nuisance as the Barracks themselves were supposed to be. On those grounds he felt strongly opposed to the views of the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDbelieved there was no intention on the part of the military authorities to surrender the Barracks at Knightsbridge. The subject had been mooted more than once, and the only approach to any idea of that kind might, perhaps, have arisen from the fact that the War Office had intimated to those who petitioned for their removal their willingness to accede to the request, provided barracks equally commodious and a site equally convenient were furnished without any expense to the War Office. That amounted, therefore, practically to a fixity of tenure; because it would be impossible to find a site equally convenient, and there were no funds available even if such could be found. With regard to the memorial, he certainly had seen the document to which the noble Earl had referred, though it had not officially come under the notice of the War Office; but its arguments had, he thought, been disposed of by the noble Earl. The remedy for the state of things complained of was in the hands of the inhabitants themselves, for it was quite in their power to proceed against the disorderly houses in the neighbourhood instead of proceeding against the Barracks, which were not disorderly. It was, no doubt, desirable to improve the approaches to the South Kensington Museum and the new Hall of Arts and
1474
Sciences; but still there were some persons so stolid as to think that Cavalry Barracks were quite as ornamental as a Hall of Arts and Sciences. No doubt, by the removal of some of the houses at Knightsbridge a great improvement might be effected; but the cost would be immense, and he very much doubted whether that or any future Parliament would consent to the large expenditure of public money that would be required for such a purpose.
LORD DE ROS, having attended the annual inspection of these Barracks for eighteen years while employed on the Cavalry Staff, did not hesitate to assert that they had always been considered one of the best Cavalry Barracks in England. The Inspection Returns, if referred to, would also show them to have been peculiarly healthy both as to the men and the horses. He thought that barrack improvements had in some instances been carried to a most absurd extent. The Barracks at Chelsea, for instance, were a standing reproach to the country, the architecture was of such a character that it was almost impossible to pass them without laughing, while they were so ventilated that the inmates were at times almost blown out of their beds. It so happens that pocket-handkerchiefs are no part of the equipment of the British soldier, which seemed to bear hard upon men placed in positions so peculiarly favourable to catching colds. Several supposed improvements had also been made at the barracks at Windsor, where, among other things, three or four warm baths had recently been erected. These baths had only one objection, and that was that no provision was made for warming the water—so that the men in using them either had to sit in empty baths or to confine their ablutions to cold water. He did not think the Secretary for War of the last Administration (Earl dc Grey and Ripon)—whom he regarded as a very able administrator—was to blame for these matters. The fault was probably attributable to certain gentlemen in the War Office, who were rather fertile in the invention of new schemes and plans, without much practical knowledge of the habits and requirements of the soldier. He might add that, with regard to the Barracks at Knightsbridge, every Report presented by Inspecting Generals of the Cavalry had referred to them in favourable terms, while the charges of misconduct alleged against

1475
their occupants were as unfounded as the abuse of the Barracks, since the records of the regiments of Household Cavalry sufficiently prove the remarkable good conduct and sobriety of the men of those distinguished regiments.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: I wish, my Lords, to say a few words before this discussion closes, it having been asserted that the opinion of my noble Friend (the late Secretary of State for War) was that the Barracks are so bad and so inefficient that they ought to be pulled down. The question certainly was discussed; but I was quite surprised at hearing that statement, because my memory, which is by no means a bad one, will not justify me in coming to such a conclusion. I am quite prepared to acknowledge that the public have complained about the appearance of the Barracks; and it was upon that fact that the idea of their removal was originally founded. But when we came to look into the subject we found that the Barracks were thoroughly good, though undoubtedly capable of some improvement; and even at the present moment some portions of them are not quite such as the)' ought to be. These, however, are questions which ought to be attended to, and no doubt they would have received that attention on the part of the military authorities before now but for the desire that has been expressed in some quarters for the entire removal of the buildings. A few days ago I went over the Barracks with a view to seeing what improvements were necessary, and, with the exception of certain repairs and alterations, there can, I think, be no doubt that the Barracks are very good and efficient. Still, however, it must be admitted that their appearance from without is a little objectionable in an artistic point of view. In the present day that portion of the Park in which they are situated is much frequented by carriages, whose occupants can find in the appearance of the Barracks no very pleasant prospect. That, however, may be remedied by a small expenditure of money. In a military point of view the Barracks are among the best in the metropolis. London, too, has of late years, grown so much that it is very important the soldiers, as well as the public, should have some open space for exercise, and Hyde Park is one of the few spaces at present at their service. I wish, also, to add, with reference to the conduct of the troops, that I have felt it my duty to make very close inquiries
1476
on the subject, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that no body of soldiers have behaved themselves better than the Household Cavalry (the two regiments of Life Guards and the Horse Guards Blues). When, therefore, the removal of the Barracks is sought to be effected on the ground that the troops do not behave well, the charge is one which I must repudiate. I quite agree with the noble Earl who has remarked that these Barracks are the healthiest in the metropolis. I do not, however, quite agree with my noble Friend (Lord de Ros), who has expressed an opinion so unfavourable to sanitary improvements, for they have certainly tended much to the comfort and general health of the troops. All these matters—such as lavatories and other things—though small matters in themselves, tend to create a feeling of respectability in the men. I cannot concur, therefore, in the opinion that the Knights-bridge Barracks ought to be removed.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he had no recollection of having spoken on this subject in the terms set forth. Nothing could be more unlikely than that he should at any time have used the strong language referred to by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Lucan), because if he had thought that the Knightsbridge Barracks were the worst in England, he should, in the pursuance of his duty, have recommended Parliament to take steps for their improvement or removal. At the same time, it should be recollected that the construction of the Barracks had been complained of as being very faulty in a sanitary point of view. That was the opinion of the Barrack Hospital Commission presided over by the late Lord Herbert. The question of their removal was considered by the late Lord Herbert, the late Sir George Lewis, and himself; and though reasons were urged for entirely remodelling them or building them on a different site, yet the objections to their present situation were not of so overwhelming a character as to make it necessary, in the opinion of Her Majesty's late Government, to call upon Parliament for the large sum of money which would be required for that purpose. He trusted the question of removing the Barracks would now be decided one way or other. He was glad to be able to bear his testimony to the good conduct of the Household Cavalry; no troops in Her Majesty's service conducted themselves better than they did.

BUNHILL FIELDS BURIAL GROUND BILL—(No. 105.)—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, Bunhill Fields, which occupied a space of about four acres in Finsbury, would fall into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the course of the present year, and the Bill before the House proposed to sanction an arrangement which had been entered into between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Corporation of London, by which it was proposed, in order to preserve the site of this celebrated burial ground as an open space and as an historical record, to transfer the management of the property from the former to the latter body, subject to certain conditions calculated to secure the interests of the public; the Ecclesiastical Commissioners reserving to themselves power of resuming the management if they should think fit. The property had been held for the last 200 or 300 years under lease by the Corporation of London, who had granted a sub-lease of it to the Dissenting body. During that period no less than 120,000 bodies had been interred in the burial ground, and among other celebrated personages who had been buried there were Defoe, Bunyan, Lieutenant General Fleetwood, son-in-law to Cromwell; Dr. Isaac Watts; Ritson, the antiquary; John Horne Tooke; Dr. John Owen, chaplain to Cromwell; Dr. Gordon; the Rev. Dr. Neal, the author of the History of the Puritans; Dr. Gill, and Dr. Nathaniel Gardner. A spot so remarkable as containing the ashes of not a few of those to whom, among others, we are indebted, under God, for our civil and religious liberties, ought, for ever, to be preserved from desecration.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.

ARMY ENLISTMENT BILL—(No. 112.)
(The Earl of Longford.)
ARMY ENLISTMENT BILL—(No. 112.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Renewal of Enlistment.)
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEdrew attention to the recommendation made by the Royal
  1478
  Commission on Recruiting, that there should be a discretionary power given to the Secretary of State to authorize arrangements for the re-enlistment of time-expired men serving abroad, and for a graduated scale of bounty to meet their cases. He complained that there was no clause in the Bill to carry out this recommendation, the great object of which was to prevent the waste of expense in bringing home men who might be willing to re-enlist. There might perhaps be valid reasons for not introducing such a clause, but if so, he was not aware of them.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that the recommendation of the Commission in this matter had been fully considered in the preparation of the Bill, and the reason why it was not adopted was the very great inconvenience of having a great number of soldiers enlisted in the same regiment and serving for different periods and on different terms. The graduated scale of bounty would cause considerable trouble. Though the precise recommendation of the Commissioners was not carried out, Clause 2 was framed to give greater facilities for enlistment.
  Amendments made; The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.
(The Lord Lyttelton.)
INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.

  (NO. 118.) REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 2 (Income of New See).
  LORD LYTTELTONproposed to raise again the question in reference to the incomes of the new Bishops—for he thought that when they affirmed the Amendment of the right rev. Predate (the Bishop of Oxford), some of their Lordships did not quite understand the point raised. He did not expect that the Bill would have any immediate operation by the institution of the proposed new dioceses, because he did not suppose that the large sum required would be raised by voluntary contributions for that purpose; but yet he should be very glad to have Parliamentary sanction to the opinion that these overgrown dioceses might properly be re-cast; and if the Bill passed, those who were favourable to the principle would have the opportunity of considering what further I measures might be required to carry the object into effect. But, nevertheless, there

  1479
  was a chance of the Bill having some effect; and he should be sorry to see that formidable obstacle which this clause would introduce—for, in effect, it required that £100,000 should be raised for the erection of one of these sees, and it was very unlikely that this would be done. He thought that it was desirable that the salaries of the new Bishops should not be necessarily fixed upon a level with the other Bishops. He desired to see the system of the Church somewhat more free and elastic; and if, with the consent of the Commissioners, the Crown, and Parliament, the income of the new sees should be a few hundreds a year less than that of the older sees, he should see no objection. He quite admitted that the old system of translation was not a desirable one, and without the clause there might be some danger of encouraging it; but he thought that danger was overbalanced by the evils on the other side.
  Moved, "To leave out Clause 2."—(Lord Lyttelton.)
  THE EARL OF DERBYbelieved that the object of the noble Lord was to do away with all restrictions as to salary.
  LORD LYTTELTONexplained that his object was to leave the amount quite open; but the matter would be subject to the consent of the different authorities he had named, which would be required in every case.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had voted in favour of the proposition to fix the amount at £3,000 instead of £4,200; but he was quite ready to agree to strike out that clause.
  EARL GREYbelieved that the system of translation on the Episcopal Bench had led to the grossest scandals, and he was opposed to anything that would tend to revive it. If this clause were struck out, there might be two or three Bishops sitting in Parliament having much lower salaries than other ocupants of the Episcopal Bench, and looking to the Minister of the day for promotion. He thought that such a state of things might produce very injurious effects in reference to the dignity and respectability of the Episcopal Bench and of the Church generally. Rather than run that risk, if this clause were struck out, he should vote against the Bill altogether.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, there was at present a considerable variety of income among the Bishops; and
  1480
  although he quite agreed as to the scandal of translations, the objection of the noble Earl applied to the present variety of income as much as it would apply under the clause in its present form.
  EARL GREYthought it was a very different thing to create three new sees having a much lower scale of salary than the existing Bishops. To that he had the greatest objection.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, that he was in favour of an increase of the Episcopate, which had been recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners twenty years ago. Considering the duties he had to perform, and the obligation resting on him to maintain a decent hospitality, and to attend in their Lordships' House, a Bishop could scarcely maintain his position upon less than £4,200 a year; and he was sorry to see this attempt to reverse the decision at which their Lordships had already arrived. If Parliament sanctioned the sum of £3,000 a year as the income of a Bishop, he feared that the result would be that thereafter all Bishops' salaries would be reduced to that figure.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYthought that £4,200 a year was certainly not more than adequate, and, indeed, his opinion was that the sum was not enough. He was certain that if the House affirmed that £3,000 a year was enough for a Bishop, then, in any future reform of ecclesiastical revenues (and the time was not far distant when such a proposition would be made) he was convinced that the proposition would not be to raise the lower salaries from £3,000 to £4,200, but would be to bring down the incomes of all the Bishops to £3,000. He thought that this would be a very great evil, and he would maintain the interests of the Bishops in this matter.
  LORD REDESDALEpointed out that no scheme in respect to the creation of a new Bishopric could be carried into effect without the sanction of Parliament, and it would be for Parliament to decide when any scheme was proposed whether the income assigned was adequate. He should certainly object to putting £3,000 a year into the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONdid not wish to express any opinion as to what was a sufficient income for a Bishop; but he thought that it was the duty of Parliament to settle that question, and this clause adopted what Parliament had already decided.
  On Question, That the said Clause stand Part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 48; Not-Contents 36: Majority 12.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Sydney, V.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bangor, Bp.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Cleveland, D.

  Chester, Bp.

  Devonshire, D.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Grafton, D.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Bristol, M.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Normanby, M.

  London, Bp.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Airlie, E.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Bandon, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Belper, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Clermont, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Grey, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumley.)

  Lucan, E.

  Powis, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Portman, L. [Teller.]

  Stradbroke, E.

  Seaton, L,

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Taunton, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Wentworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Marlborough, D.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Churston, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Digby, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Derby, E.

  Devon, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Eldon, E.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Heytesbury, L.

  Lyttelton, L. [Teller.]

  Lauderdale, E.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda

  Malmesbury, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Northwick, L.

  Romney, E.

  Penhryn, L.

  Sommers, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Hawarden, V.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Bagot, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Wharncliffe, L.

  Clause 9 (Number of Bishops sitting in Parliament not to be increased, struck out, and new clause inserted in lieu thereof.)—(Lord Lyttelton).
  Clause 12 (No part of the Common Fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
  1482
  to be applied to any of the purposes of this Act).
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDmoved the insertion of the words "until one half of the amount necessary for the endowment of such Bishop shall have been otherwise provided." It was said that the object of the proposal was to endow new bishoprics out of the Common Fund. It was no such thing. The Episcopal Fund was now merged with the Common Fund, and when that fusion took place, it was agreed that the fund so constituted should be liable for the two charges to which the two funds had theretofore been severally liable. The money which was available from the alteration of the episcopal incomes might afford the amount requisite for supplying the incomes of new Bishops, and if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Government, and the Parliament thought right to sanction this, there was no reason why the plan should not at all events partly be carried into execution. His proposition was that this should not be done, however, until half of the requisite fund for the endowment of each bishopric was raised by voluntary efforts. The lay mind of England was not, he believed, convinced at the present moment that it was worth while to give money for such an object, and he simply proposed that it should be lawful for the Commissioners to render that aid which as matters now stood they might lawfully render out of the funds at their disposal. He should prefer to see the clause omitted altogether, leaving it to the wisdom of Parliament to deal with the question whenever occasion arose; but if that were not done he should press his Amendment, as tending in some degree to mitigate the operation of what he looked upon as an unjust provision in the Bill.
  Moved to add the following words:—
  "Until One Half of the Amount necessary for the Endowment of such Bishop shall have been otherwise provided."—(The Lord Bishop of Oxford.)
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEthought it should be left to the laity to come forward and provide the whole of the income necessary for the new bishoprics, and that that House should not consent to the adoption of a proposal for appropriating any part of the fund which would be most injurious to the interests of the hardworking clergy of England, who were the most underpaid set of men in the world.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he would vote for either the Amendment or for the omission of the clause. He believed the creation of the three additional bishoprics to be not merely expedient but necessary; but he did not believe that the subscriptions necessary for the purpose would be raised. The whole thing, therefore, would be a sham unless they adopted this principle of the Amendment. He desired to establish those and other bishoprics by means of funds of which the far larger portion came from episcopal and capitular estates.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 41; Not-Contents 31: Majority 10.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Chester, Bp.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor).

  Ely, Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  London, Bp.

  Bath, M.

  Oxford, Bp.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

  Belmore, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Cardigan, K.

  Derby, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Devon, E.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  Hylton, L.

  Powis, E.

  Northwick, L.

  Romney, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Walsingham, L.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Wharncliffe, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Sydney, V.

  Devonshire, D.

  Carlisle, Bp,

  Bristol, M.

  Belper, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Airlie, E.

  Churston, L.

  Bandon, E.

  Clermont, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Digby, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Foley, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Lyttelton, L. [Teller.]

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Lyveden, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Grey, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Portman, L. [Teller.]

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Seaton, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Taunton, L.

  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHthought their Lordships, after the decision which had just been arrived at, ought now to pause. Their legislation would be made more simple and intelligible if it proceeded on the responsibility of the Government. He regarded it as a matter of the highest importance that the creation of a new bishopric should be made on the undivided responsibility of the Government. Moreover, he could not understand the position which these new ecclesiastical officers who were to be designated "Assistant Bishops," were to fill. Unlike ordinary Bishops, who, as soon as they were consecrated, entered into possession of all their powers, when created these would be in a state of suspended animation, having no means of exercising authority except by permission of another, which permission might afterwards be wholly or partially withdrawn, Hence every Bishop would carry about with him his own Prometheus, or to use a more intelligible phrase, would have at his disposal one or more "movable dummies." But was such a provision calculated to maintain the character, and position of the Bench of Bishops? The House had shown its disposition to maintain the efficiency and character of the bench of Bishops; but would that efficiency and character be maintained by creating Assistant Bishops with so small a share of responsibility and power and not a particle of income? The assistants of one Bishop might not be recognised or continued by his successor, and would then have to sink back to the position of rural deans. Hence they might have Bishops to the number of 130, ill paid, and with duties indefinitely defined; would that give increased influence or respectability to the right rev. prelates? He believed the House would do well to take a little more time to consider the subject, and that the noble Lord would do well to confine the provisions of his Bill to the creation of the three new bishoprics and let it go down to the other House in that simple shape.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, the House appeared to have proceeded very carefully in its legislation hitherto, and he did not see any necessity for adopting the advice of the noble Earl.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Her Majesty may appoint certain Persons to aid Bishops).
  LORD PORTMANmoved the omission

  1485
  of the words "honorary canon" and "rural dean" from the clause, because he thought clergymen of that position should not fill the post of Suffragan Bishop.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, the noble Lord had completely misapprehended the case in hand; the Assistant Bishops the Bill proposed to create would not act on their own independent authority, but would simply exercise certain temporary functions committed to their charge by the Bishop of the diocese. He, however, repeated his objections to endowing these Assistant Bishops with territorial titles which they would never be able to drop. He thought that they should be selected from the higher grades of the clergy.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDhoped their Lordships would not stultify themselves by reversing a decision which they had come to after full discussion on a former occasion.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYthought their Lordships should remember that if a rural dean was consecrated by the Archbishop to the office of Suffragan Bishop he would remain a Bishop for ever, his episcopal functions could never be taken from him. He could not help thinking that if these titular Bishops were greatly multiplied, in times of excitement an impetus would be given to the movement in favour of what were called "free churches."
  LORD CRANWORTHpointed out that the Suffragan Bishop appointed by the Bill would be unable to exercise any episcopal functions except under the authority of the Bishop in whose see he was appointed.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYthought that no apprehension need be entertained that the Assistant Bishops would have more power than it was necessary for them to have.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYinsisted that the Suffragan Bishops could continue to minister in spiritual things.
  After some discussion, which was inaudible, Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of the Bishop of LONDON, the words "other dignitaries" were inserted, and—
  On Motion, that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsuggested a postponement. It was evident, after the desultory character of the conversation
  1486
  which had just taken place, that the clause had not received sufficient consideration, and moved to leave out the clause.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYobjected to the postponement suggested by the noble Earl.
  EARL STANHOPEthought that it would be advisable to omit the remaining portions of the Bill. The measure was originally intended to give assistance to aged or infirm Bishops, but it had now assumed a magnitude which, he believed, would necessitate its re-consideration.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEthought that the subject of the clause was of the greatest importance, and ought not to be disposed of in a hasty manner. He did not object to the appointment of Suffragan Bishops, but he did object to the proposition before the House, for the question was a grave constitutional question, and one which, if touched at all, ought to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government. There were two schemes before the public for the increase of the episcopate. One was reasonable; it proposed to relieve the over-worked Bishops of Lincoln and London, and possibly of Exeter, by the creation of sees cut off from their too populous dioceses. The other was revolutionary; its aim was the subdivision of all the dioceses of England and Wales into three and four dioceses each, coupled with the election of the Bishops. The latter scheme it was obvious involved of necessity the removal of Bishops from Parliament. The present Bill was for the appointment of Suffragans in any see—and not one only, for the number was unlimited—and while there were at present twenty-four or twenty-six Bishops sitting in the House of Lords, there might under this Bill be 100 Bishops who would have no seats in the House, and would be receiving greatly reduced incomes. He was afraid their Lordships were lending themselves unconsciously to the revolutionary party, to whose plans he had just alluded. He would tell their Lordships what had occurred lately at Leeds. A meeting of the partizans of this scheme had been held. It was first decided that Leeds should be the seat of a new bishopric. The towns of Halifax, Huddersfield and Dewsbury, determined not to be left behind, also came to the conclusion that it would be desirable that they should be the seats of new sees. Then the question arose, what was to become of the Bishop of

  1487
  Ripon? "Make him Archbishop," was the reply. "What," it was next asked, "was to become of the present Primate of England, the Archbishop of York?" The reply was, "Oh, make him Patriarch." This might be ludicrous; but he had been informed that what he had just narrated had actually taken place. He need scarcely point out to their Lordships the necessity of being on their guard against persons holding such extreme opinions. He trusted that the proposition of the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) would be acceded to, and then the clause would be held over for further consideration.
  LORD LYTTELTONdeprecated the idea that the clause had been hastily prepared, and pointed out that all the terrible consequences it was suggested as likely to arise from the clause would be guarded against by the proviso that the Suffragan Bishops should only be appointed if Her Majesty thought fit.
  On Question, That the said Clause stand Part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 20; Not-Contents 23: Majority 3.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  London, Bp.

  Cleveland, D.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Airlie, E.

  Devon, E.

  Churchill, L.

  Grey, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  Romney, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Ely, Bp.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Lyttelton, L. [Teller.]

  Seaton, L.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Halifax, V.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Chester, Bp.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Oxford, Bp.

  St. David's Bp.

  Bristol, M.

  Churston, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  De Grey, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Portman, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Powis, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Clause struck out.
  Then the dependent Clauses 14, 15, 16, 17, struck out.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 129.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.